This whole thing sounds like a bunch of dudes trying to justify why they don't desire women the way a normal man would. They don't realize simply by analyzing women, they already lost the battle. A man doesn't need to analyze women and attracts her naturally. This whole movement is a gloried big brother program for weak minded people to sit and study to "become" what they already should be once puberty hits.
Real talk, this MGTOW/Redpill shyt might be the worst thing to ever hit society
- Thread starter Unknown Poster
- Start date
Insun Park
Fukk Em
You should have ended your post here
You making dumbass posts trying to lecture people who have been burnt is no different than some non black person telling black people to "get over" the persecution blacks have faced in past years and the discrimination/smear campaign we still face today
aight, let me reason with you nikkas for a second.
Your problem with women is that you think there is a "one" for you and y'all shame women for doing them. Just accept this. Women are going to be with the guys they feeling at the end of the day regardless of anything. Rather than try to chase cheap thrills and women that aren't really interested in you just to get that instant gratification...be that do that become that nikka!
Like honestly y'all I model myself after Pimps and fashion designers like Halston and Alexander McQueen. Or Oliver Rousteng from Balmain. Or some rappers. Or Hugh Hefner. Or like James Bond. Or Shaft. Or JFK. Or like Michael Jackson. Or Pharell. AKA...fly ass nikkas that women want to be around! Or like Peter Gatien. Or Dee Dee Ramone. Or on that globetrotting DJ lifestyle. in NYC oine day. In Milan the next. In Brazil the next week.
That's where I'm trying to be man.....
Successful fly ass nikkas that look good and smile and are fun to be around and ain't sweating them but they see YOU as value to them. YOU make them looking better. And their company makes you look golden.
Don't be bitter men. Don't be vengeful. Just accept things for where they are and work your ass off to where you need to be.
"Pull yourself up by your bootstraps"
Redwood
Superstar
And the truth about women is that cartoon youtube video that was posted earlier?
MalikX
Superstar
aight, let me reason with you nikkas for a second.
Your problem with women is that you think there is a "one" for you and y'all shame women for doing them. Just accept this. Women are going to be with the guys they feeling at the end of the day regardless of anything. Rather than try to chase cheap thrills and women that aren't really interested in you just to get that instant gratification...be that do that become that nikka!
Like honestly y'all I model myself after Pimps and fashion designers like Halston and Alexander McQueen. Or Oliver Rousteng from Balmain. Or some rappers. Or Hugh Hefner. Or like James Bond. Or Shaft. Or JFK. Or like Michael Jackson. Or Pharell. AKA...fly ass nikkas that women want to be around! Or like Peter Gatien. Or Dee Dee Ramone. Or on that globetrotting DJ lifestyle. in NYC oine day. In Milan the next. In Brazil the next week.
That's where I'm trying to be man.....
Successful fly ass nikkas that look good and smile and are fun to be around and ain't sweating them but they see YOU as value to them. YOU make them looking better. And their company makes you look golden.
Don't be bitter men. Don't be vengeful. Just accept things for where they are and work your ass off to where you need to be.
That's what the Red Pill tells men to do.
I guess you're upset because some of the language is too harsh for you but, it's to be expected. Women lie to men everyday about what they want, guys get confused when their love lives don't work out. TRP explains things that places like the Coli would rather clown dudes for not getting. Women in their 20s want rich playboys. Older women in their 30s and 40s just want a good man because they're tired of being fukked and chucked by the playboys. TRP teaches nikkas to accept the raw truth, how to recognize those traps (for example....former sluts or single moms wanting a provider now, etc.) and how to put things in motion to turn their L's into W's (life, career, self improvement, etc.). There's a lot of wisdom on there.
Quiet Magician
Superstar
This is redpill. Don't know why you are condemning it my g.
But you also fukk men and talk about molesting boys. Red pill is basically a. way of life for faggits that dabble in p*ssy but love men or men that dabble in dikk and use women.
Ain't nothin Tariq didn't break down in mack lessons. Cacs always ten years later though repackaging someone else's thoughts
Don't do what? Call you a Fakkit? But that's what you are
Tariq was ahead of the curve
KravenMorehead™
Barrel Brothers.®
Friday, August 25, 2006
Information Age is about context, not content
What happens when you are flooded with information? Information ceases to have the value it once did. Why pay for a newspaper when you can look it online for free? Why waste valuable time sitting through TV commercials for mediocre coverage when you can find better information online?
Some people think my passion in life is writing. It isn't. It is actually about contexts. I enjoy juggling various contexts around and discarding ones that lack the data to back them up. For example, Nice Guy is entirely a context. It is a view of the way to look at the world. A Don Juan has a completely different context than a Nice Guy. A business owner also has a completely different context than an employee. It is not so much that a context is 'wrong' or 'right', but they lead to entirely different places. A Nice Guy context leads to a different place than a Don Jaun context. Like a bucket of chips, I choose and discard different contexts. Some contexts you'll never be fully sure about but others you can track down the facts (or lack of facts) and discard it. The mental boundary in people's minds today is not information (which is easily available and infinite) but context.
There is a difference between the egghead and the wise man. The egghead knows much information about nonsense (in other words, a poor context). The wise man knows much nonsense about information (in other words, a rich context). The egghead is rich with information, the wise man is rich with contexts.
In a constantly changing world, you must allow the possibility of new contexts or you will be left behind. As example to this, consider people who cling to the old way of saving money to get rich. Yes, you might get rich if you save money but only within sixty years or so. These people will be outpaced by those who adopted a new context, of putting themselves into massive debt on assets, to get ahead. I believe Nice Guys are in a context of a previous era.
The anxiety of man is living today with yesterday's contexts. We are no longer in the Industrial Revolution. You do not pass Go and expect to get pensions from companies like your grandparents did. Health care from businesses is no longer assured. A happy and long lasting marriage is not probable. One of the benefits of altering your contexts is that you will lose that anxiety you used to have. You will no longer fear women because you now have an entirely different context. When a feminist starts saying, "Shame on you! You are a man! This means you only have responsibilities and do not deserve any pleasures," you have the ability to laugh at her.
I cannot respect someone who cannot challenge their contexts. You do not have to agree with mine or anyone else's contexts, but a context cannot be written in stone no matter how much you agree with it. Facts are written in stone, not theories (and the contexts those theories create). Some people tell me, "It is the theory that is fundamental!" I say, "No, it is the facts that are fundamental. We must change our theories based on the data." To them, they would rather discredit or not look at competing data.
So why would someone be unable to challenge their contexts? Feminism is a stubborn context that does not respond well to being challenged. Why is that?
1) People adopt the context that fits their narcissism.
Women will adopt the context of feminism because it fits their narcissism. A poor person will adopt the context that rich people are screwing out the common man because it also fits his narcissism (and vice versa for the rich man and poor man). People who play video games will think it is the apex of civilization while those who do not play video games will think it is a waste of time. Those who have many degrees will have the context that degrees make them smart. Those who flunked out of college will likewise call college a 'waste of time'.
My favorite example of this is people driving their cars. When a car goes faster than them, that driver is a "maniac". When a car goes slower than them, that driver is an "idiot". It is all relative based on that person's driving speed! So young people, who tend to drive faster than most, think most people on the road are idiots. While old people, who tend to drive slower than most, think most people on the road are maniacs ("those damn crazy kids!").
2) People stick with contexts that fit to their other contexts
Hence, those who hate religion will tend to subscribe to the context that religion is a source of civilizational decline in the world (or the reverse). Those who hate Western Civilization will only see the West spawning evil. Those who have the context that the world is going to doom and gloom will only see the downside of every issue. Their bigger context affects their smaller contexts.
Much of the bias in the media is due to this. They have a pre-existing template and so every story, even the selection of stories to cover, gets their contexts pre-painted due to the original Mother Context.
3) People become stubborn with contexts if they have never been challenged
As Thomas Paine used to say, "Time makes more converts than reason." What I call "The Way" is exactly this flaw. "The Way" becomes so since no one allows for any other possibilities, for any other options. By removing the entire outside, the remaining context becomes "The Way". This is how tyrannical societies tend to work by removing the outside as much as possible.
This is why many older men suggest to younger ones to meet foreign women in other countries. They are not saying to marry foreign women. They are saying that, by removing all foreign women, your typical American woman (or British woman, Canadian, etc.) becomes the de facto standard of all women. By meeting these various foreign women, you have a better idea of how women in your home country compare (or don't).
If you have a context and had no one challenge you on it, what happens? Well, you never had to explain your context to other people, to publicly defend it, to give reasons for it. All you know is that those who challenge your context (which is the only one you know so to you it is "The Way") must be dearranged, misfits, or losers of society. These people find the challengers not as challengers but as "outside the norm" and must be de-legitimized because, in their minds, you already have unlegitimate viewpoint. This is why Feminism, which has never been challenged, must destroy her critics instead of debate them in the arena of ideas.
Feminism is such a stubborn context because it holds all three of the above 'barriers'. Feminism has not been challenged, it feeds people's narcissism, and it fits other contexts higher up. When someone views all of society as an artificial creation, then one can easily believe in feminist laws to "progress" society. The pride of the person and the age of the context as well as the influence of other contexts prevents people from opening their minds.
To those from Sosuave, you know that your life changed when you changed your context away from the Nice Guy mindset. Just ask yourself, "If my life has so changed by altering that context, what other contexts could there be out there?" And with that, you embark on a series of life changing discoveries that will improve and enrich your lives more than those narcissists and arrogant elitists could imagine.
Information Age is about context, not content
What happens when you are flooded with information? Information ceases to have the value it once did. Why pay for a newspaper when you can look it online for free? Why waste valuable time sitting through TV commercials for mediocre coverage when you can find better information online?
Some people think my passion in life is writing. It isn't. It is actually about contexts. I enjoy juggling various contexts around and discarding ones that lack the data to back them up. For example, Nice Guy is entirely a context. It is a view of the way to look at the world. A Don Juan has a completely different context than a Nice Guy. A business owner also has a completely different context than an employee. It is not so much that a context is 'wrong' or 'right', but they lead to entirely different places. A Nice Guy context leads to a different place than a Don Jaun context. Like a bucket of chips, I choose and discard different contexts. Some contexts you'll never be fully sure about but others you can track down the facts (or lack of facts) and discard it. The mental boundary in people's minds today is not information (which is easily available and infinite) but context.
There is a difference between the egghead and the wise man. The egghead knows much information about nonsense (in other words, a poor context). The wise man knows much nonsense about information (in other words, a rich context). The egghead is rich with information, the wise man is rich with contexts.
In a constantly changing world, you must allow the possibility of new contexts or you will be left behind. As example to this, consider people who cling to the old way of saving money to get rich. Yes, you might get rich if you save money but only within sixty years or so. These people will be outpaced by those who adopted a new context, of putting themselves into massive debt on assets, to get ahead. I believe Nice Guys are in a context of a previous era.
The anxiety of man is living today with yesterday's contexts. We are no longer in the Industrial Revolution. You do not pass Go and expect to get pensions from companies like your grandparents did. Health care from businesses is no longer assured. A happy and long lasting marriage is not probable. One of the benefits of altering your contexts is that you will lose that anxiety you used to have. You will no longer fear women because you now have an entirely different context. When a feminist starts saying, "Shame on you! You are a man! This means you only have responsibilities and do not deserve any pleasures," you have the ability to laugh at her.
I cannot respect someone who cannot challenge their contexts. You do not have to agree with mine or anyone else's contexts, but a context cannot be written in stone no matter how much you agree with it. Facts are written in stone, not theories (and the contexts those theories create). Some people tell me, "It is the theory that is fundamental!" I say, "No, it is the facts that are fundamental. We must change our theories based on the data." To them, they would rather discredit or not look at competing data.
So why would someone be unable to challenge their contexts? Feminism is a stubborn context that does not respond well to being challenged. Why is that?
1) People adopt the context that fits their narcissism.
Women will adopt the context of feminism because it fits their narcissism. A poor person will adopt the context that rich people are screwing out the common man because it also fits his narcissism (and vice versa for the rich man and poor man). People who play video games will think it is the apex of civilization while those who do not play video games will think it is a waste of time. Those who have many degrees will have the context that degrees make them smart. Those who flunked out of college will likewise call college a 'waste of time'.
My favorite example of this is people driving their cars. When a car goes faster than them, that driver is a "maniac". When a car goes slower than them, that driver is an "idiot". It is all relative based on that person's driving speed! So young people, who tend to drive faster than most, think most people on the road are idiots. While old people, who tend to drive slower than most, think most people on the road are maniacs ("those damn crazy kids!").
2) People stick with contexts that fit to their other contexts
Hence, those who hate religion will tend to subscribe to the context that religion is a source of civilizational decline in the world (or the reverse). Those who hate Western Civilization will only see the West spawning evil. Those who have the context that the world is going to doom and gloom will only see the downside of every issue. Their bigger context affects their smaller contexts.
Much of the bias in the media is due to this. They have a pre-existing template and so every story, even the selection of stories to cover, gets their contexts pre-painted due to the original Mother Context.
3) People become stubborn with contexts if they have never been challenged
As Thomas Paine used to say, "Time makes more converts than reason." What I call "The Way" is exactly this flaw. "The Way" becomes so since no one allows for any other possibilities, for any other options. By removing the entire outside, the remaining context becomes "The Way". This is how tyrannical societies tend to work by removing the outside as much as possible.
This is why many older men suggest to younger ones to meet foreign women in other countries. They are not saying to marry foreign women. They are saying that, by removing all foreign women, your typical American woman (or British woman, Canadian, etc.) becomes the de facto standard of all women. By meeting these various foreign women, you have a better idea of how women in your home country compare (or don't).
If you have a context and had no one challenge you on it, what happens? Well, you never had to explain your context to other people, to publicly defend it, to give reasons for it. All you know is that those who challenge your context (which is the only one you know so to you it is "The Way") must be dearranged, misfits, or losers of society. These people find the challengers not as challengers but as "outside the norm" and must be de-legitimized because, in their minds, you already have unlegitimate viewpoint. This is why Feminism, which has never been challenged, must destroy her critics instead of debate them in the arena of ideas.
Feminism is such a stubborn context because it holds all three of the above 'barriers'. Feminism has not been challenged, it feeds people's narcissism, and it fits other contexts higher up. When someone views all of society as an artificial creation, then one can easily believe in feminist laws to "progress" society. The pride of the person and the age of the context as well as the influence of other contexts prevents people from opening their minds.
To those from Sosuave, you know that your life changed when you changed your context away from the Nice Guy mindset. Just ask yourself, "If my life has so changed by altering that context, what other contexts could there be out there?" And with that, you embark on a series of life changing discoveries that will improve and enrich your lives more than those narcissists and arrogant elitists could imagine.
MalikX
Superstar
Tariq opened a great cheeseburger restaurant. So for now on, nobody else besides Tariq can make cheeseburgers
KravenMorehead™
Barrel Brothers.®
Friday, July 21, 2006
Why Men Fall into the Trap of Matriarchy
At a time when everyone seemingly dons tattered arrogant souls, when, in order to feast on the height of their self-seen greatness, everyone yields to their usual brainwashed tropes. In the Matriarchy, there are two: the Grand Career and the Grand Household.
The Grand Career is not a ‘job’ but something more ‘glorious’. A plumber is a job, but a lawyer is a ‘career’. Never-mind that a plumber can get good money and adds more to society than many lawyers, the difference between a ‘job’ and ‘career’ these days is image. Women, who worship the image, will excitedly pursue these careers. But in the end, a ‘career’ in that traditional sense is often a losing situation. It is the trap of the Wage Slave.
The Grand Household (notice how I did not say ‘Grand Family’) is the big McMansion, this is the Perfect Wedding, and this is the 1.6 kids with a 1.1 dog. Not only women desire this but so do many men. Some prefer the Grand Household over the Grand Career and vice versa (many women want both). But both of these are life not coming from your soul, from YOU BEING YOU, but from a pre-existing template.
I wondered, “How can people live their lives refusing to be who they are, by rejecting their own soul and passion by desiring a pre-made life?” The answer is that they all see the Grand Career and Grand Household as THE SUCCESS. Everyone is scared of being seen a ‘loser’ so they all desire ‘success’ (which is why woman’s biggest shame tactic is saying a guy lives with Mom at home. While there is nothing to envy in this man’s position, it is highly preferable than to be a man convicted of murder, of crimes, of furious sins, yet these are the ‘men’ many skanks desire due to the rebellious image they hold.)
Is a Grand Career the ‘true success’? Maybe, if it is truly what you love to do. But keep in mind that there is no job security these days. You can easily get fired from your job. And no matter how much money you earn on your ‘Grand Career’, the owners of the business always make more. You will never become rich by having the ‘Grand Career’ (unless you become some star like a famous actor and the probability of that occurring is very low). Why should I invest my life in making someone else rich? Why not invest my life in making MYSELF rich?
Is the Grand Household the ‘true success’? Again, maybe, if it is truly what you want. But also keep in mind that everyone else has the same cookie-cutter home with a similar dog. If this wasn’t the case, then why would sitcoms prove to be so universal? Also, again, this is the life of image. It is the picture of the ‘family’ (with dog) sitting on the fireplace mantle. Can your life be defined by a picture? Many people think so.
Women get sucked into the Matriarchy for the obvious reasons. But why do men (especially in the Anglosphere) get sucked into the Matriarchy?
1) They have no passion in life. They have no dreams, no goals, no vision. They do have sexual desire which is the closest they’ve felt to passion. In fact, they misuse the word ‘passion’ as to mean sexual desire. If your passion in life is only women, you will be sucked into the Matriarchy.
2) They have small souls and desire validation. Sexual desire can be treated in numerous ways: masturbation, pornos, prostitutes, visiting other countries, and so on and so on. Women will employ shame tactics against any way that doesn’t benefit them. The Way is HER way. Marriage is usually the only proper way for her. In the last few decades, even the ‘player’ is now considered ‘proper’ by women. Many women do want no-strings attached sex and players easily provide it. Players also are ones who desire validation. They seek only sexual validation, however and, like the Nice Guy, have a very small soul (since they are so easily manipulated even though they think it is the other way around).
3) They see progress only with their eyes. Many people are not interested in becoming rich. They are only interested in LOOKING rich. This is why many go into massive debt buying a fancy new car, huge house, or something else trivial. Real wealth is time. But you cannot see ‘time’ so people never consider their most precious asset. Although I love my father much, he was very foolish with his time. Where I grew up, we had acres that had to be cut. I hated cutting all that lawn. My father, however, loved it. The reason why was that he could SEE the difference of cutting. This explains why I think many people LOVE yard-work or housework. It also explains why people will invest hours into MMORPGs but not the usual video game. Other people can SEE their ‘improvements’ in the MMORPG while in the usual video game one remains invisible. The Matriarchy worships the visible, not the invisible. The visible components are all celebrated (materialism, the ‘compassion’ traits of religion) but not the invisible (the thinking, the intelligence, or even religion’s worship of the spirit). Body building gains so much fandom from girls because they can SEE it. Body building, to me, is much easier than say reading ancient history or understanding business. Yet, the Matriarchy yields to the visible, not the invisible. Men, who think progress is only detected through the eyes, are destined for the Matriarchy.
4) Men desire the X, Y, Z lifestyle. As children, through school and through jobs, we are taught to think in the X, Y, Z fashion. This means that in order to reach the conclusion, we must do X, then Y, and then finally Z. This is the ‘step by step’ book. This is also the instruction manual. Many men find this linear style thinking relaxing and orderly. But this is the thinking of a slave, not a free man. In freedom, there is no X, Y, Z life. There is no ladder. Men who think this way yearn for a system to work within. With women, they want to work the system and WIN with women doing the X, Y, Z steps. On Sosuave, I was constantly flooded with private messages asking “WHY DON’T YOU GIVE ME DETAILED INSTRUCTIONS!? STOP WITH THIS GENERALIZED TALK!!!” What they were truly asking me was, “Tell me the rules that are to be obeyed to have success.” I inform them, “It is time for you to create your own rules for life. If you do not, you will enter the woman’s rules by default.” These ‘woman’s rules’ are the Matriarchy.
5) Many men worship sex and female companionship as if it were the greatest achievement in life, that it alone makes them a ‘man’. I am always amazed at the vagina worship by young males. However, don’t bother to criticize this view as these type of men are very sensitive and will lash back, “Don’t you enjoy getting laid?” These men foolishly believe that winning with women is the same as winning with life. It isn’t. You can win with women and still lose in life. Somehow, someway, placing one’s male appendage into a woman’s yahoo has been made out to be the ‘height of manhood’. I blame movies and modern music for this. The only ‘sexual revolution’ has been the complete annihilation of fertility. I get a chuckle when young people today say that people in the 40s and 50s were puritanical and didn’t have sex. Where did the Baby Boom generation come from after all? It was common to have families of ten or higher a couple of centuries ago. Before the rise of modern media, manhood was defined by the number of children one had (poorer countries still hold this notion). This proved to be a problem for infertile men no doubt. George Washington is a good example of this. While he could not prove his manhood by fertility, he chose the battlefield and relentlessly pursued ‘honor’ to obtain it. If one worships sex and finds that as the passageway into Manhood, one is destined for the Matriarchy because you give women all the power to define your manliness.
6) Men desire the Matriarchy because they want to be seen as a ‘winner’ and laugh at the ‘losers’. The Matriarchy does its fine share of shaming. Generally, any man who chooses not to participate and devote his free time with women will be shamed in some way. Any time not spent with or for women must be ‘earned’. If you want to watch a football game, you must ‘earn’ it by previously doing some deed for the wife or girlfriend. These men will believe everything women say about the so-called losers of the Matriarchy. They will laugh at the ‘virgins’, label them as losers and mock them (and these virgins have done no wrong to them except to choose not to interact with women on that level). They will mock the starving artist or struggling entrepreneur for the ‘fantastic’ wage slave that they are. The Matriarchy has a defined set of ‘winners’ and ‘losers’. Many men desire to be on top to laugh at losers. Pointing out the Matriarchy to these men is the hardest because they don’t want to see that THEY might actually be losers. They don’t want to possibly believe that a FEMALE has been controlling and dictating life’s terms to them. This desire for Matriarchial pride and relishing of Matriarchial scorn for its ‘losers’ will easily swallow men into the Matriarchy, and these are the hardest to break free.
What is the solution to not be sucked into the Matriarchy? It is to wear the armor of humility (resisting the temptation to have an arrogant soul) and to have a sword of your dreams (where you be who you are). With this, a man becomes invincible to the Matriarchy and other men watch at the demigod in disbelief. How does he do it? Why does he walk so confidently? It is because he followed the Pookish First Commandment: BE WHO YOU ARE.
Work for your dreams or you’ll end up working for someone else’s.
KravenMorehead™
Barrel Brothers.®
Saturday, April 14, 2007
Passion versus Eros
It is said that there is more sex than ever before, or, at least, more than in recent times. Constant cries of outrage come from the latest news story about a principal making porn with school teachers or school kids doing hanky panky under the table. A better illustration would be the early university (founded by churches) compared to the university of today (whorehouse with a clocktower).
Eros is the behavior we see today in modernity. It speaks to the sensation, to the feeling, and more to the appetite. The 'sex' of moderns is not revolutionary or wild, it is lame and pathetic. In fact, it is so lame and pathetic that moderns continually have to dress their sex up with words pregnant in sophistication. Did the woman or man really 'seduce' you? From what I see, the behavior was acting exactly like that of a Happy Meal commercial. It would be absurd to say McDonald's tries to "seduce" our gluttonry with pictures and rotations of their food (at best, such 'commercials' speaks only to a mild sensation).
Passion is a word commonly misused. Passion does not mean "strong sensation" or "wild feeling". Passion is an animation of the soul which is why the word "passion" is used in reference to religion (such as the PASSION of Christ). Someone who is following their passion in life is literally following their soul. Those whose souls 'animate' at, say, singing will become bitter and unhappy if they were a banker instead. You can tell when someone is 'passionate' about something not because they 'really like it' but because they become much more animated within it.
There is very little passion in the moderns today. Moderns do not believe in souls, they believe in selves. The Self can never be satisfied and has an infinite appetite. It used to be that the smallest and most subtle differences of religion would be enough to drive our ancestors to wage bloody war against one another. Not saying we should return to this, I am just pointing out how passionate people used to be. Using a measuring stick of American politicians, one can go back fifty years and more to hear passionate (i.e. speaking of the soul) speeches from politicians of either party. Even though politicians like Truman were not orators, they were manly. The lack of passion breeds androgyny. I have never met a man who didn't have some sort of passion within him. Often, it is passion that makes tha man (and woman) rather than these poorly emulated androgynous men and women of today. There is no 'passion' behind a woman's (or man's) adultery these days. There are no more Romeo and Juliets. Most of Shakespeare, built around and on passion, sounds wordy and irrelevant to moderns. The monologues speaking of heaven and earth or characters agonizing over their effects unleashing hell upon nature cannot be heard by moderns.
The biggest annoyance to me is the misuse of the word 'tragedy'. If a cute, pig-tailed little girl ran off from her mother to run in the street and was hit by a speeding car and killed, it is not a tragedy. However, if the mother then laments and agonizes in her soul how she should have been looking after her daughter better that becomes a tragedy. Somehow along the way, tragedies were seen as nothing more than corpses on stage and bad feelings. So now anything that gives us a bad feeling is labeled a "tragedy". 9/11 was not a tragedy. The notion that certain key people agonized of how they could have prevented it, that is the tragedy. Without the basis of soul, there can be no tragedy.
Modern women are very easy to deal with if you engage only in eros rather than passion. The MRA complaints against marriage is actually more centered in the lack of passion within marriages rather than the laundry list of errors such as 'nagging', 'no sex', 'spends all the money', etc. I actually don't believe today's women know what passion is or what to look for it.
Men and women are hungry for passion. Women are probably more hungry for it if the shelves of romance books mean anything. The problem is that many young women are overwhelmed with the feelings of eros and mistake it for passion. To those who wonder why ceaseless hedonism can often make life become absolute misery, it is the denying of one's soul to flights of eros. Eros just simply isn't as fulfilling as passion.
Let me take you back to the Brave New World. The citizens of that world go so far as anti-passion with 'feelies' or 'soma' to counteract any anxieties they feel. The Savage is full of passion as even the slightest twinges of lust can cause him agony within the soul. Brave New World is not a work of prophecy or biology; it is a reworking of Buddhist legends (more on this later).
Young men are not in 'agony' that their girl has chosen to love another or 'cheated' on them. The agony is that these girls do not know how to love at all. While some will blame Feminism for creating a sense of 'no passion'; feminism can only exist and spread where people are not passionate. It is the soul-less who readily join mass movements.
This means that the Source of Errors is something deeper than Feminism. Even if the world banded together and eliminated Feminism, very little would change.
Passion versus Eros
It is said that there is more sex than ever before, or, at least, more than in recent times. Constant cries of outrage come from the latest news story about a principal making porn with school teachers or school kids doing hanky panky under the table. A better illustration would be the early university (founded by churches) compared to the university of today (whorehouse with a clocktower).
Eros is the behavior we see today in modernity. It speaks to the sensation, to the feeling, and more to the appetite. The 'sex' of moderns is not revolutionary or wild, it is lame and pathetic. In fact, it is so lame and pathetic that moderns continually have to dress their sex up with words pregnant in sophistication. Did the woman or man really 'seduce' you? From what I see, the behavior was acting exactly like that of a Happy Meal commercial. It would be absurd to say McDonald's tries to "seduce" our gluttonry with pictures and rotations of their food (at best, such 'commercials' speaks only to a mild sensation).
Passion is a word commonly misused. Passion does not mean "strong sensation" or "wild feeling". Passion is an animation of the soul which is why the word "passion" is used in reference to religion (such as the PASSION of Christ). Someone who is following their passion in life is literally following their soul. Those whose souls 'animate' at, say, singing will become bitter and unhappy if they were a banker instead. You can tell when someone is 'passionate' about something not because they 'really like it' but because they become much more animated within it.
There is very little passion in the moderns today. Moderns do not believe in souls, they believe in selves. The Self can never be satisfied and has an infinite appetite. It used to be that the smallest and most subtle differences of religion would be enough to drive our ancestors to wage bloody war against one another. Not saying we should return to this, I am just pointing out how passionate people used to be. Using a measuring stick of American politicians, one can go back fifty years and more to hear passionate (i.e. speaking of the soul) speeches from politicians of either party. Even though politicians like Truman were not orators, they were manly. The lack of passion breeds androgyny. I have never met a man who didn't have some sort of passion within him. Often, it is passion that makes tha man (and woman) rather than these poorly emulated androgynous men and women of today. There is no 'passion' behind a woman's (or man's) adultery these days. There are no more Romeo and Juliets. Most of Shakespeare, built around and on passion, sounds wordy and irrelevant to moderns. The monologues speaking of heaven and earth or characters agonizing over their effects unleashing hell upon nature cannot be heard by moderns.
The biggest annoyance to me is the misuse of the word 'tragedy'. If a cute, pig-tailed little girl ran off from her mother to run in the street and was hit by a speeding car and killed, it is not a tragedy. However, if the mother then laments and agonizes in her soul how she should have been looking after her daughter better that becomes a tragedy. Somehow along the way, tragedies were seen as nothing more than corpses on stage and bad feelings. So now anything that gives us a bad feeling is labeled a "tragedy". 9/11 was not a tragedy. The notion that certain key people agonized of how they could have prevented it, that is the tragedy. Without the basis of soul, there can be no tragedy.
Modern women are very easy to deal with if you engage only in eros rather than passion. The MRA complaints against marriage is actually more centered in the lack of passion within marriages rather than the laundry list of errors such as 'nagging', 'no sex', 'spends all the money', etc. I actually don't believe today's women know what passion is or what to look for it.
Men and women are hungry for passion. Women are probably more hungry for it if the shelves of romance books mean anything. The problem is that many young women are overwhelmed with the feelings of eros and mistake it for passion. To those who wonder why ceaseless hedonism can often make life become absolute misery, it is the denying of one's soul to flights of eros. Eros just simply isn't as fulfilling as passion.
Let me take you back to the Brave New World. The citizens of that world go so far as anti-passion with 'feelies' or 'soma' to counteract any anxieties they feel. The Savage is full of passion as even the slightest twinges of lust can cause him agony within the soul. Brave New World is not a work of prophecy or biology; it is a reworking of Buddhist legends (more on this later).
Young men are not in 'agony' that their girl has chosen to love another or 'cheated' on them. The agony is that these girls do not know how to love at all. While some will blame Feminism for creating a sense of 'no passion'; feminism can only exist and spread where people are not passionate. It is the soul-less who readily join mass movements.
This means that the Source of Errors is something deeper than Feminism. Even if the world banded together and eliminated Feminism, very little would change.
